The evidence presented in the Rod Blagojevich trial could be interpreted by some as A. a lot of something or B. a lot of nothing. Thus the outcome of the first trial stunned some (particularly in the media), surprised others (who thought that all that media attention surely signified irrefutable guilt), disappointed still more (those who thought all those embarrassing f-bombs constituted “proof”), inspired cynicism (by those who saw the case as nothing but “business as usual” to begin with), and relief in a minority (that the guilty on all counts media circus and the prosecution’s braggadocio wasn’t “rewarded”). Blagojevich will likely have a tougher time in the retrial, since only one juror refused to convict on the principle charge of trying to “sell” Barack Obama’s senate seat, although juror comments will likely aid the defense and the prosecution in recognizing the weaknesses in their cases. But as the jury foreman noted, there was no “smoking gun” presented by the prosecution that constituted direct evidence that Blagojevich was something more than overly blunt, and not particularly competent, horse trader. Unlike former Republican governor George Ryan who actually had time to receive pay-outs and bribes for favors while his daughters received illegal payments from Ryan’s campaign funds, the Blagojevich prosecutors apparently thought that heading-off the actual “sale” of the senate seat was worth the risk of not presenting to a jury definitive proof that the “sale” actually occurred. The “assumption” that Blagojevich would have received something in return, however, was not sufficient in the minds of at least one juror in lieu of the fact that no “transaction” had actually occurred.
Although Blagojevich was the focus of U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald’s “Operation Board Games" that was begun in 2003, by 2006 the investigation had only allegedly uncovered hiring irregularities in government agencies, but had as yet not uncovered illegal activity by the governor—or what was judged to be illegal—until the FBI was allowed to wiretap him. What fascinates is that Blagojevich "dared" the FBI to wiretap him, seemingly certain that his activities could not be construed as illegal, insofar as business-as-usual was concerned (and not surprisingly, a 95-page recommendation on political reforms laid out by a commission subsequent to Blagojevich’s ouster would be opposed by key Illinois legislators). Meanwhile, a dozen political and fund-raising figures were eventually caught in the probe’s web and have since pleaded guilty. The Chicago Tribune, long an enemy of Blagojevich and had called for his impeachment years before the actual event, was clearly disturbed by the outcome of a trial where Blagojevich continued to insist on his innocence on all charges rather than plead guilty like the rest; but the paper still allowed itself lascivious pleasure in noting that the conviction on one “minor” count—lying to the FBI—still sufficient to tag Blagojevich a “felon.” Furthermore, a subsequent editorial sneered that:
“The two defendants (Blagojevich and his brother and co-defendant Robert) already have seen one full-throated version of what the feds can throw at them. But long lists of witnesses in this trial, and potential witnesses in the next, don't know what awaits. Every Illinois and Washington politician or insider who didn't have to testify — and who breathed easy when this case went to the jury — now has to wonder: How will the prosecution and defense refine their approaches? Will I be called this time? Will I have to answer questions about this case — under oath?”
“…full-throated version of what the feds can throw at them.” Those are key words. The “feds” have almost unlimited resources in which target anyone they choose. While federal attorneys cringe in fright before the likes of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, and shrivel before Joe Arpaio's bluster, on other occasions they will do whatever is "necessary" when some unlucky person is their gun sights, as evident in the prosecutorial misconduct that led to the conviction of Ted Stevens. The zeal to "clean house" by Democrats, meanwhile, led to the creation of the Office of Congressional Ethics, which has also been accused of wielding its power in an arbitrary manner, reacting to hypersensitivity to what is deemed the public mood. Democrats in Congress, who seem more "sensitive" to being seen as corrupt than Republicans, seem to be much more willing to sacrifice their own as well. Take for example the case of Sam Graves—a Republican representative from Missouri, has been called a “rubber stamp imbecile and bright red reactionary,” is “famous” in the state for his thuggish campaign tactics and for deploying “goons” to intimidate and threaten opponents even in his own party—is a case in point of this arbitrariness. The House Ethics Committee recently declined to investigate this man for “an apparent conflict of interest” in inviting Brooks Hurst, a business partner of Graves’ wife, to testify before the Small Business Committee, in an apparent effort to sway legislation that would benefit the ethanol plant that Hurst and Mrs. Graves had an investment. Graves apparently did not inform the committee that he himself had a personal financial interest in the testimony. Interestingly, Graves is the only member of the so-called “Dirty Thirty” congresspersons who is white who had been forwarded to the Ethics Committee for further investigation. The other seven have all been African-American, but unlike Graves, all are currently under "further review."
The OCE has been accused—especially by the Congressional Black Caucus—of overreach and behaving in an oversensitive fashion; the caucus has called for scaling back the powers of the OCE. It is now claimed that the OCE is targeting black lawmakers. That may explain why the Ethics Committee decided not to investigate Graves, but did decide to investigate Rep. Maxine Waters on a similar allegation, allegedly intervening with Treasury Department on behalf of a bank for which her husband was once a board member, even though the bank in fact did qualify for TARP funds. Rep. Laura Richardson is also under investigation, apparently because a few neighbors mowed her lawn. Along with Charles Rangel and four other congresspersons, the OCE and House ethics panel seem to have decided that the only people worth investigating are African-American. These are the only members of the so-called “Dirty Thirty” that Nancy Pelosi, who apparently has great influence on the Ethics Committee’s “deliberations,” has decided that there are cases against at the present time.
What hangs over all of this, and I have talked about this before, is that there is no such thing as “clean” politics. It is impossible to be elected to office without horse-trading and under-the-table deals. The recent U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission case has opened the floodgates even wider for campaign fundraising abuse, since it allows multi-billion dollar corporations to make virtually unlimited contributions to candidates who can be bought and sold and do their bidding. The right-wing organization Citizens United, which brought the case, claims that it wishes to restore “citizens control,” but this it is probably the last thing that the ruling will do. Every regulatory change or government programs that effects businesses are subject to “pressure” from said businesses, and those who “succumb” to the pressure are amply “rewarded” come time for the spoils, whether in campaign cash or later positions as lobbyists or sitting on corporation boards. All elected officials are in the pay of someone or something more powerful than they. The question then is who is to be judged more guilty than another; too many prosecutors in the pursuit of personal notoriety use entirely arbitrary variables to make that determination.
No comments:
Post a Comment